Hughes Masonry Company, Inc. v. Greater Clark County School Building Corporation, J. A. Construction Management Corporation v. Insurance Company of North America, Third Party’s Empirical Analysis
659 F.2d 836 · 1981
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 7 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 128 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Intergen N.V. v. Grina (2003), Ei Dupont De Nemours and Company Delaware Corporation v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber and Resin Intermediates Sas (2001)
28 federal appellate · 7 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 16 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 167 Ind. App. 541 - Daly v. Nau · Tepper Realty Company v. Mosaic Tile Company · 153 Ind. App. 635 - Helvey v. O'NEILL · Prestressed Concrete, Inc. v. Adolfson & Peterson, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t would be manifestly inequitable to permit [plaintiff] to both claim that [the non-signatory party] is liable to [plaintiff] for its failure to perform the contractual duties described in the agreement and at the same time deny that [the non-signatory] is a party to that agreement in order to avoid arbitration of claims clearly within the ambit of the arbitration clause.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“intimately founded in and intertwined with”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“arising out of or relating to this [Contract] or the breach thereof” shall be settled by arbitration). 5 . Both Middlesex and Lozano review the application of Fla.Stat. 682.13(1) to the conduct of a neutral arbitrator. Fla.Stat. 682.13 differs from 9 U.S.C. § 10 in that the Florida law limits the application of the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.